Some of those they grabbed that were going to shoot up Ft Dix came across the Border at Brownsville, TX. The way I look at it the harder you make it the better chance you have of stopping things like that.

Some of those they grabbed that were going to shoot up Ft Dix came across the Border at Brownsville, TX. The way I look at it the harder you make it the better chance you have of stopping things like that.

I am not disputing your point. I agree with it. Just in this specific cases those guys were all kids when they were brought to the US. The oldest was 6 at the time and the youngest was 1. They didn't come into the U.S. as terrorists. They came in as children.

I don't think a fence will be that magical. It may help, but more border patrol will go further. That is with or without a fence. Fences can be cut. It still takes people to patrol the areas.

I am not disputing your point. I agree with it. Just in this specific cases those guys were all kids when they were brought to the US. The oldest was 6 at the time and the youngest was 1. They didn't come into the U.S. as terrorists. They came in as children.

I don't think a fence will be that magical. It may help, but more border patrol will go further. That is with or without a fence. Fences can be cut. It still takes people to patrol the areas.

The way I understand it the wall is supposed to be a concrete one......not trying to nitpick.

The way I understand it the wall is supposed to be a concrete one......not trying to nitpick.

Sorry, I was vague and didn't mean fence in a literal since. Silly on my part. A concrete wall can be damaged. You have miles and miles of wall. I can see walls being damaged in spots over and over. Damage one spot and then climb over another while patrol checks out the hole.

I get the thinking of a wall slowing people down. It will do that, but will it do it enough to truly make a difference. I am of the opinion that no it won't.

From an illegal immigrant standpoint they won't care. Walls can be climbed. There are ways to get across and they will find them. They are determined. If they weren't there would not be an issue. Now add in a terrorist. They will definitely be motivated.

A wall will not be a bad thing(except financially), but I just don't think it is a great solution. It comes down to man power. That is why the areas where the militias started popping up started doing well at slowing illegal immigrants. They provided extra man power. A wall is mostly just wasting money. Being cynical, I see a few people making major profits for the wall construction. Some politicians(R & D) with ties to the construction companies will gain.

The wall needs to be a combination of a steady obstacle in physical nature but also combined with some technical Support as in motion detectors or other technical components.

There are four basic ways to circumvent a wall.

Over the wall.
Under the wall.
Around the wall.
Through the wall.

You have to have technical options to support just a basic wall that can also help monitor those ways to get past a wall.

Another thing is to have human presence monitoring the wall whether that be physically at the wall or at stations monitoring the technical support.

To me the wall is the most important part and should be done first.

If you don't improve that area first then you are basically not going to make a dent in the overall situation.

I have used this analogy many times.

If you are in the middle of the ocean on a boat and it springs a leak.

Which would work better?

Plug the hole first and than remove the water.

Or keep trying to remove the water while not plugging the hole and in turn letting just as much, or more, water in than you are removing.

Now there still will be problems. You have, as ice noted, areas of water. In those cases you increase the man power with the coast guard and other groups to patrol those areas.

One other problem that is not brought up much, but I have heard about, is any Indian reservations that are in the US but also part of the border.

There has to be a way to incorporate that situation as well.

To me we can do a much better job securing our borders first and than once that is under control put more effort into finding and dealing with the Illegal Aliens already in country.

You limit the inflow of Illegals and than work on the existing ones. Whether that be finding these illegals, working on systems to punish those that employee or help these illegals or other methods.

The problem right now is money and manpower. This is another area where the Iraqi war is hurting us. It limits our cash flow for this issue and our man power.

I don't have a problem with people wanting to come here to work as long as they stay out of trouble, try to embrace this as their nation (which includes learning the language and trying to integrate into americans).

The problem is not doing it in a way that makes them accountable.

I would like to see, after the border issue is settled, all illegals who are in prison sent back to mexico. No use of keeping them in prison here and paying for them when we can send them back. The only prisoners I would consider keeping is those on death row.

Once again this is if the border issue is working.

People that are here and are hard workers really trying to do better for themselves and their families. That are not getting in trouble. I would like those people to still have to go through legal channels to become citizens and not have to deported on the spot.

There would be stipulations on that of course. How long have they worked already (don't just let someone that just crossed the border a day ago fall into the category). It become mandatory that they learn english and other other training, pay taxes, have legit identification, have something similar to a parole officer in the sense that they are keeping contact with an agency so they can be kept track of. A few other things but the idea that they are basically making an effort, being held accountable and being kept track of.

Those that just want to keep trying to get around the system need to go. You do not follow the guidelines you are gone.

Those that are deported are kept on a list and fall into a group that are not fast tracked but actually slow tracked. In other words there would be 3-4 groupings for illegals in determining who can come in or who can stay.

For example.

Group 1

People already in country.
Those that have worked, stayed out of trouble and followed the guidelines would be on a fast track group to get their citizenship quicker. They have shown they are willing to follow the rules and are good people. Nothing wrong with wanting good people in your country. They are making an effort.

Group 2

People already in country.
People are found to be criminals. Deport them and put them on a blocked list.
They try to gain entry to the US at border entry points (remember this is if the border is finally secured). They are denied entry.

Group 3

People out of country trying to get in.
They come to the checkpoints. They file the paper work, they go about doing it legally. They are on the normal track. They are neither fast or slow track nor are they blocked unless the paperwork/investigation reveals they are criminals.

Group 4

People already in country
These are people that although they are not criminals they just do not follow the guidelines they agree to and therefore are deported.
This was like being on parole and they broke the parole but not by doing criminal acts. Just not following the guidelines.
For example they quit or refuse to learn english, they quit reporting in to an agency so they are not being tracked or accounted.

Those people get deported and if they try to come back in through check point they are put on a slow track.
The ones on the fast track or the normal track are a higher priority and the ones on the slow track just have to wait.

Those are just some general ideas. I don't know if they are realistic. I imagine it would have to be a situation where it would have to wait until we get out of Iraq.

Once again the problem is money and manpower. We need the money to get the equipment and man power to make the wall and monitor it.

After that is set up we will need more workers to track down the Illegals already in country. We will need workers to process paperwork for processing those in country or wanting to come into country. We will have to have manpower to keep track of these individuals, train them, paperwork and so on. Just any logistical thing you can think of that would go along with my ideas.

It would be a very costly endeavor in the beginning but in the end I think it would be worth it as it would help control who comes in, who stays and taxes being paid by these workers.

There are still a great deal of other issues that need worked out but I think that is a decent guideline of an idea to work from.

my basic stance is the same from the other board bp. you build a wall to keep people out another facet of it is that it keeps people "in". if we work so actively to keep people *out* do we need to change the working on the statue of liberty?

i know, it's different when done "legally" so what are the problems preventing them from coming over legally? can those be better addressed?

wasn't aware of indian lands being a key here - but can we keep pushing them aside and enforcing our will on them yet again? give them crap land and then come back and say "oops - need to put up a wall but this shouldn't bother you at all... where's our moral obligation here now?

i think the wall would be a huge mistake and a costly one and in the end not make much of a dent in the problem itself. it's a band aide till a better way comes along and to me it's just too expensive a band aide.

I don't feel comfortable with the latin invasion because it is adding a lot of change in my life. I enjoy the people, at least the Mexicans and Mexican-Americans I have known in my life except the violence-prone ones, just like all other races. They are changing the culture I have known all my life and while I welcome cultural change, I would prefer to have a voice in it.

We are being overwhelmed with pure numbers from an area of denser population with political restrictions and a dearth of economic opportunity to an area of lesser population and greater economic opportunity and personal freedom. How is this not social physics at work? In physics, things move from an area of high pressure to areas of lower pressure.

This is our land, we stole it from the Mexicans and Indians fair and square. Now we're being invaded by South Americans and it is forcing change not of our own choosing upon us.

The real problems are Latin American overpopulation and harsh, corrupt governments and all the problems that come with that combination. In my view, Catholocism compounds the problem in that while it gives faith and hope to the millions, it compounds their problems with its stand on birth control and their poverty increases.

I think overpopulation is the real problem as none of the other problems would exist if there were fewer people to share their resources. That likely won't change anytime soon. Catholicism isn't likely to change its teachings anytime soon and neither are those in political power.

What to do about it? I'm sure I don't know but short of the USA annihilating large segments of the Latin population or them going to war with each other to accomplish the same result, the problem is a long term one and either the USA finds some way to deal with it or the USA of the future will be Latin and Catholic.

Whether you percieve this as good or bad is pretty much up to you (relativistic physics).

I would like to see some sort of guest worker program where people could work and legally be paid wages that are fully subject to the same taxes as everybody else here. I think they should also pay Social Security and medicare witholding also but that money should go into the SS/Medicare revenues to help to keep the system afloat while the guest workers would not be eligible to participate in SS benefits (unless they ultimately become citizens) but the average guest worker would send money home or take it with him/her and return home. The bottom line is they would get money while bailing out our SS system and the money they make would improve their family's lives at home, everyone wins.

We don't live in the best of all possible worlds so we have to do the best with what we have.

my basic stance is the same from the other board bp. you build a wall to keep people out another facet of it is that it keeps people "in". if we work so actively to keep people *out* do we need to change the working on the statue of liberty?

i know, it's different when done "legally" so what are the problems preventing them from coming over legally? can those be better addressed?

wasn't aware of indian lands being a key here - but can we keep pushing them aside and enforcing our will on them yet again? give them crap land and then come back and say "oops - need to put up a wall but this shouldn't bother you at all... where's our moral obligation here now?

i think the wall would be a huge mistake and a costly one and in the end not make much of a dent in the problem itself. it's a band aide till a better way comes along and to me it's just too expensive a band aide.

Yes I already knew your stance from our arguments in the past and that is why I did not address those.

I did not even consider the Indian reservation thing until some time earlier this week when talking with someone.

I see NO WAY we can make them move. We made that mistake too many times in the past.

I was curious about giving incentives for them to police their own borders.